Managing Agricultural Resources for BiodiversityConservation

Case Study for India, the Philippines, and Vietnam

15 August 2001

Prepared by Hannah NadelFor The Environment Liaison Centre International

(ELCI)Nairobi, Kenya

2

Abstract

During the Third Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity,agrobiodiversity arose as one of the poorly defined emerging issues by biodiversityconservation planners. Although indigenous domesticated crops and livestock hold arich diversity of species and varieties, and other organisms around them hold the keyto healthy agroecosystems, little has been done to catalogue, conserve, and promotethem. Indeed, many are in the process of disappearing, especially in the DevelopingWorld, as biodiverse traditional agricultural systems are replaced by monocultures ofhigh-yielding, high-risk exotic species and varieties, often with disastrousconsequences. In an attempt to reverse this trend, the status of agrobiodiversity andexisting or proposed policies for its conservation and use are examined in India, thePhilippines, and Vietnam. The Philippines and Vietnam have existing NationalBiodiversity Strategy and Action Plans, whereas plans are still being conceived inIndia. The information and lessons learned will be compiled into a UNEP guide thatwill aid national biodiversity conservation planners to formulate their own strategiesand action plans for conserving agrobiodiversity.

3

I. Impact of agricultural production systems in the region on the conservationand use of biodiversity

In response to unchecked human populations in the region, a number ofagricultural production systems have developed within the past four or five decades inan attempt to increase food supplies and alleviate poverty. These consist of:

• conversion of wild land to agriculture,• overexploitation of wild biodiversity resources,• conversion of diverse small-scale farming to homogeneous large-scale

commercial farming systems,• increased utilisation of exotic and modified species and varieties that often require

high inputs such as pesticides and fertilisers, and• increased cultivation of exotic cash crops.

These shifts in types and intensity of production systems all lead to reducedbiodiversity, both wild and domestic, and to reduced use of biodiversity, with long-term repercussions.

Conversion of forest to agriculture is a major cause of biodiversity loss throughoutthe region. In Vietnam, 50,000 hectares per year of forest are lost to unplannedagricultural clearances, the same amount to forest fires, and the rest to fuelwood andtimber harvesting. In response, a large-scale reforestation programme is under way.Unfortunately, most of the land that is being deforested is natural woodland, while thereforestation is largely made up of industrial forest plantations of pines, rubber andeucalyptus that add little in terms of ecosystem restoration. Despite worthygovernment efforts for biodiversity conservation, existing programmes for protectionof forests and watersheds have not met the need for integrated and sustainableapproach to forest and community development, at least up to the writing of theVietnam Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) (Vietnam1995).

Market incentives that encourage commercialisation, especially for the exportmarket, are heavily favoured by central governments in the region. In India, cashcropping, already a threat to small-scale biodiverse farms, has been given a majorpolicy boost. New trends include floriculture, industrial aquaculture, and other forms ofintensive farming that leave little scope for biologically diverse production systems(Kothari 1999). Modern cultivation has threatened the age-old bonds between localfarmers and traditional crops. Thirty years ago, up to 75 varieties of millet, sorghum,lentils, pigeonpea, and cowpea were grown in the Deccan region of India. The adventof hybrid seeds, chemical fertilisers, bore wells, and government loans has since luredmany farmers into gambling on cash crops like cotton and sugarcane — sometimestragically (Lumb 1988). During Vietnam’s transition to market economy farmers areswitching to new varieties and species in demand. This poses a danger to traditionalvarieties and species adapted to local conditions, which may have long-term ratherthan short-term benefits.

Modern farming practices that rely heavily on pesticides and chemical fertilisersimpact the conservation and use of biodiversity. In many parts of the region, suchpractices have displaced traditional rice paddies where fish, frogs, and other species

4

once supplemented local diets. Few of these species can survive with inputs ofpesticides and chemical fertilisers. There is finally an increasing awareness of theissue of pesticides and other toxic chemicals in India as well as their effect ondwindling wildlife, especially birds. Awareness is also growing in Vietnam and thePhilippines. The modern thrust toward elimination of wild plant borders around cropfields is also reducing diversity that once provided a variety of direct and indirectservices to agriculture, including self-regulating pest control and genes from wildrelatives of crop plants.

Over-introduction of new varieties in agricultural production, and over-exploitation of forest resources are also common causes of regional decline inagrobiodiversity. Agrobiodiversity in the Philippines has been heavily affected byimportation of exotic species and varieties and by release for commercial planting ofgenetically altered varieties approved by the Philippines National Seed IndustryCouncil (NSIC). From 1955 to 1975 the NSIC focused on rice and corn, but laterexpanded to field legumes, root crops, tobacco, sorghum, wheat, cotton, andvegetables. In1991 it began releasing registered fruit varieties. Threats to livestockdiversity come from inappropriate breeding, importation of exotic breeds, reduction ingrazing area, lack of conservation, lack of awareness of animal genetic resourcesconservation, and lack of policy (Philippines 1995a). Human-induced threats toforest biodiversity come mainly from extensive logging, habitat degradation, kaingin(slash-and-burn agriculture), and pests and diseases (Philippines 1995b). There isalso increasing trade with neighbouring countries in human and animal food,medicinal plants, and raw materials for handicrafts and industry (Vietnam 1995),which is difficult to manage sustainably.

In addition, the widespread traditional practice of shifting cultivation in foreststhat once prevented destruction of biodiversity is experiencing grossly prematurecultivation in some areas due to population pressures, leading to habitat degradation,biodiversity erosion, and reduced productivity. However, measures to reverse thedegradation and to sustainably manage forest use are now in effect in some areas,such as Thailand. In Vietnam, highland populations appear to be largely untouchedby the national birth control programmes and annual growth rates of 4% are reported.There are over 1.2 million people in the highlands still engaged in slash and burnagriculture, and their numbers are increasing faster than food supplies. Increasingdemands for food, fuel, and income are driving the overexploitation of non-agricultural bioresources through hunting and fishing, wood cutting, harvesting ofwild medicinal, food, handicraft, and industrial plants, and trade in pets and researchanimals. In the Philippines, kaingin plots in forest are abandoned after one or twoyears of cash-crop production (rice, maize, and vegetables) and do not regenerate formany years, if at all.

II. Summary of status and trends of key aspects of agrobiodiversity

II.1. Diversity of indigenous crop and livestock varieties is declining; utilisation ofexotic high-yielding crop and livestock varieties is increasing.

Although there is no figure available for agrobiodiversity loss in the region, itis high. Some idea can be gained of crop diversity loss by an example from India: in

5

1882, 48 distinct varieties of rice, and thousands of nondescript varieties, werereported from the Himalaya, displaced now by a handful of high-yielding varieties(HYVs)(Maikhuri et al. 1997). The area under diverse traditional food crops hasdeclined substantially too, replaced by monocultures of exotic cash crops. In thecountry as a whole only a handful of HYVs are now grown over 70% of rice paddyland and 90% of wheat land (India 1990).

Traditional homestead gardens in Kerala, India, are major sources of householdrequirements. Apart from non-paddy staple food (tubers, jackfruit, etc.), these gardensprovided non-staple food (e.g. fruits), timber and other house construction materials,biomass energy, fodder, organic manure for the fields, medicinal plants, edible oils,spices, and even material for clothing. Over the last 4-5 decades, however, thistraditional practice has considerably declined. Coconut plantations or other land useshave taken over. As a result a number of plants grown in homesteads have disappearedor declined substantially, with negative effects on both people and the environment(Kothari 1999). Modern cultivation has threatened the age-old bonds between localfarmers and traditional crops, which include foxtail millet, finger millet, sorghum,lentils, pigeonpea, and cowpea. Thirty years ago, up to 75 varieties were grown in theregion. The advent of hybrid seeds, chemical fertilisers, bore wells, and governmentloans has since lured many farmers into gambling on cash crops like cotton andsugarcane — sometimes tragically (Lumb 1988).

Livestock diversity has also suffered due to government attempts to increaseproductivity. In India, one breed of cattle is already extinct, and from 20% to 50% ofbreeds of various livestock are threatened, in addition to all poultry breeds (Kothari1999). Poultry diversity is especially threatened, and probably will suffer more due toexport-oriented incentives. One of the major causes of diversity decline is thedisplacement, even at smallholder farms, by exotic breeds that are better suited forlarge commercial farming systems.

II.2. Diversity of wild species within agricultural ecosystems is declining.

Fruit bats provide one example of wild species loss with direct impact onagriculture. The demise of fruit bats (flying foxes) (Megachiroptera) through overhunting in South Pacific islands has reduced the pollination and yields of sometraditional fruits. It is likely that a similar scenario exists in parts of Southeast Asia.Many plants there rely solely on fruit bats for pollination. Overall, more than 92genera of flowering plants in 50 families have been recorded as being visited by fruitbats. Yet the populations of these pollinators have plummeted, and three species havegone extinct.

II.3. Diversity at the landscape level is declining.

Between 1950 and 1990, clearing of old-growth forests in the Philippines fortimber and agriculture (83% loss) and conversion of grasslands to agriculture (65%loss) were responsible for much conversion from high to low landscape biodiversity.Forest cover in the Philippines has decreased from 62% to 20% of land area between1920 and 1991. Between 1948 and 1987 forest loss coincided with doubling inagricultural area and urban expansion. In total about 9.7 million hectares (33% ofland area) have been converted to agriculture. About 24% of this land resulted in low

6

agrobiodiversity areas generally devoted to monocropping systems such as irrigatedrice, pineapple, sugarcane, and banana. An additional 34% became mediumagrobiodiversity areas that are currently planted in coconuts with various types ofunderstoreys. Lastly, 42% (4.2 million hectares) resulted in high agrobiodiversityareas supporting corn, rain-fed rice, cultivated/managed pasture lands, and other farmareas devoted to traditional systems that produce multiple crops in small spaces.About 63% of 19 million hectares of forest is extensively used for agricultural crops,and 4.3 million hectares are under agroforestry (Philippines 1997).

Similarly in Vietnam, forest cover fell from 46% in 1943 to less than 24%forty years later. Some 1.3 to 1.7 million cubic meters of timber are felled every year.In 1994, deforestation rates were around 150,000 to 200,000 hectares per year andreforestation about 100,000 to 150,000 hectares per year. Unfortunately, most of theland that is being deforested is natural woodland, while reforestation is largely byindustrial plantations of pines, rubber and eucalyptus that add little to ecosystemrestoration.

II.4. Agrobiodiversity is too narrowly defined

A major weakness in interpreting status and trends of agrobiodiversity, andindeed in planning what can be done about conservation, is the restricted definition ofagrobiodiversity pervading the region. The definition of agrobiodiversity in thePhilippines Sectoral Report on Agriculture and Livestock (Philippines 1995a), forinstance, includes only crop and livestock species and their wild relatives, rather thanalso the broader ecosystems or landscapes in which these exist. The glossary in theReport provides the following definition: “Agrobiodiversity pertains to the plant andanimal resources for agricultural development. It refers to that aspect of biodiversitywhich has been subjected to selection, modification, and adaption by the variousgeneration [sic] of people to serve best their growing and changing needs forsurvival.” Likewise, the India Biodiversity Bill (India 2000), definesagrobiodiversity as “the biological diversity of agriculture related species and theirwild relatives”. There is little room in such definitions for the wild diversity thatexists within and around cultivated areas that provides services to agriculture, such aspollinators, soil organisms that contribute to nutrient recycling and soil formation,natural enemies of crop pests, and the species that provide habitat for beneficialorganisms and prevent soil erosion. Nor is there room in these definitions for thebroader agricultural landscape and much of the wild biodiversity within it.

II.5. Opportunities exist for positive change

Despite the many negative forces in the region, the predominance oftraditional farmers, an increasing role by NGOs, and increasing awareness of the roleof environment in rural development provide opportunities for positive change. In thecase of livestock, a growing concern is being felt for conservation of the manyavailable local varieties. The section on Best Practices (Section VI) in this reportprovides only a few examples of the many successes in conservation ofagrobiodiversity experienced in the region.

7

III. Approaches to the conservation and management of the followingcomponents of agrobiodiversity, in national agricultural plans and in nationalbiodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs)

III.1. PollinatorsPollinators are not mentioned directly in the NBSAP or national agricultural

plan of any of the focal countries in the region. The Philippines National BiodiversityAssessment and Action Plan (NBAAP) project I.C.2 seeks to value and account fordirect and indirect goods and services from biodiversity and bioresources (Table 2),which at least brings the conservation and management of pollinators within the scopeof the action plan.

III.2. Soil biodiversityThe Indian NBSAP, which is still in progress, will cover micro-organisms in

addition to wildlife, crop, and livestock diversity. Presumably, these micro-organismswill include those in soil, which are crucial for ecosystem functioning in both wildand agro-ecosystems. The Philippines NBAAP Project I.A.4 on Microbial ResourceInventory is more explicit, aiming to address the impact of habitat destruction,biological pollution, and chemical pollution on soil microbes (Table 2).

III.3. Biodiversity that provides mitigation of pests and diseasesA national integrated pest management (IPM) programme exists in India, as

in other Asian countries, which uses farmer field schools (FFS) to build farmercapacity and knowledge on agroecology. Some 77,000 farmers have been trained in2,600 FFS on rice, cotton, sugarcane and oilseeds. A further 12,400 demonstrationshave been conducted after FFSs to help spread the concepts and practice of IPM. FFSare also being used to address wider soil, water and nutrient management issues. InTamil Nadu, farmers are experimenting with row planting, planting distance,biofertilisers (e.g. Azospirillum, Azolla), organic manures, and basal fertiliserapplications. Farmers’ adoption of biocontrol agents (eg. Trichogramma, neem)means that conventional pesticide use has fallen by 50% on average. Incomes haveincreased by 1000-1250 rupees per hectare, and rice yields have increased by 250 kgper hectare. (Eveleens et al.1996).

Inherent, but not explicit, in the National Agricultural Plan of India is thepromotion of biodiversity that may result in reduced pest and disease outbreaks, butonly in a limited sense. This lies in Section 4.1.75 of the Agricultural Plan, whichemphasises increasing the area under multiple- and inter-cropping to increase yieldper unit area of pulses. Such polycultural methods have several benefits, includingmitigation of crop pests and diseases.

Project I.C.2 in the Philippines NBAAP (Philippines 1997)(Table 2)addresses valuation and accounting of direct and indirect goods and services frombiodiversity and bioresources, which paves the way to account for and promote theservices provided by natural enemies of crop and livestock pests.

III.4. Crop and livestock genetic resources

8

III.4.1. National ex-situ measuresIndia and the Philippines have a large capacity for ex-situ conservation of

genetic resources in their networks of gene banks. In India, a considerable amount ofthe genetic material which has been grown or bred by farmers may no longer beavailable in the field, but has been collected and stored in gene banks and breedingstations. The National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) and the IndianCouncil of Agricultural Research have several hundred thousand accessions in theirnetwork of gene banks (Kothari 1999). In 1996 the Philippines had programmes andprojects on ex-situ conservation that focused on small endemic but endangeredspecies of staple crops and other plants in agricultural ecosystems. Technologiesemployed include seed storage, tissue culture, and living collections of plants. TheNational Plant Germplasm and Resources Laboratory (NPGRL) had 32,446accessions of 396 species in 1994, and is the world or regional germplasm repositoryof several important vegetable varieties. The Philippines Rice Research Institute(PHILRICE) maintains species of native and exotic wild rice from the InternationalRice Research Institute (IRRI) Germplasm Center and from collections throughoutthe country. The Bureau of Plant Industry and the National Tobacco Authority havecapacities for conserving crop germplasm. Some important non-timber forest speciesare conserved in the Rattan Gene Bank, the Bambusetum,and the Palmetum. TheInstitute of Plant Breeding at the University of the Philippines at Los Baños hasdeveloped and conserves many varieties of high-yielding, mostly exotic, fruits,vegetable, grains, and ornamentals. The Philippines Republic Act 7308 (1992), calledthe seed Industry Development Act, promotes and accelerates the development of theseed industry and mandates the conservation, preservation and development of plantgenetic resources of the nation. It vests upon the University of the Philippines, LosBaños, the leadership in plant biotechnology activities related to plant improvement,genetic resources conservation and in-vitro mass production of planting materials.The export of indigenous crop and animal species has been controlled to maintain thecomparative advantage of the Philippines in these species (e.g. Administrative Order14, series of 1987 on ramie).

There is also a system of botanical gardens in India for ex-situ conservation.Among them, the Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute is the largestbotanical garden in Asia, and maintains a conservatory garden spread over 300 acresthat is home to 50,000 accessions of 12,000 genetic variants of 7,000 tropical plantspecies. It’s research and development wing is geared towards achieving the goals ofconservation and sustainable utilisation of plant diversity in tropical India. In thePhilippines, Project II.B.2 of the NBAAP (Philippines 1997) promotes establishmentof botanical gardens (Table 2).

Vietnam’s genetic resource conservation has leaned heavily toward in-situmethods. By 1985 it did utilise some ex-situ methods of medium-term conservationby freezing of some seeds, and preservation of rootstock as tissue samples; however,these technologies did not offer adequate security according to the BiodiversityAction Plan (BAP)(Vietnam 1995). The BAP advised at that time that governmentprogrammes should favour in-situ conservation.

III.4.2. National in-situ measuresIn-situ conservation measures are less well defined, but efforts in that

direction are being made. The Philippines BAAP (Philippines1997) Project II.A.4

9

aims to establish and improve in-situ conservation centres of wild relatives ofdomesticated species (Table 2). This project is important not only for protection ofuseful genotypes but often also for wild diversity within agroecosystems (see below).India’s National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources (NBAGR), the central agencydealing with livestock diversity, has recently initiated some schemes to encouragefarmers and pastoralists to continue or revive their use of indigenous breeds. TheNBPGR is also exploring possible schemes to encourage on-farm conservation ofcrop diversity in India (Kothari 1999). A “gene sanctuary” has been established inthe Garo Hills of India for wild relatives of citrus, and others were planned forbanana, sugarcane, rice, and mango (Hoyt 1992).

By 1985, Vietnam’s genetic resource conservation utilised short-termconservation by propagation in fields, as well as ex-situ methods of medium-termconservation by freezing of seeds, and preservation of rootstock as tissue samples;however, these technologies were not advanced and did not offer adequate security(Vietnam 1995). The BAP advised that government programmes to establish andmaintain viable populations of traditional domestic varieties of plants and animalsmust be extended and strengthened; that special breeding stations should beestablished on agricultural research farms; and that subsidies should be developed toencourage minority and local farmers to continue growing their own traditionalvarieties.

Vietnam has since then developed a national system of in-situ geneticresources conservation. This system involves 30 scientific research institutions andproduction units to carry out the conservation of genetic resources of agriculturalplants and animals, medicinal plants, and forest trees. So far, there are 16 colonies ofagricultural plants conserved with thousands of sample varieties regionallyrepresented and naturally distributed throughout the country. Vietnam possesses3,200 plant species used traditionally for medicines and their usefulness is wellknown, but of which only 500 species of commercial and medicinal values have beenconserved so far. Loss of valuable medicinal herbs and other plant species isthreatened by continuing loss of natural forests. The conservation of genetic resourcesof forest trees concentrates on native species with reforestation potential and fastgrowth, and in extinction-prone species. Others are mainly conserved in-situ inprotected areas. Conservation of agricultural animal genetic resources is focused onnative species and varieties of domestic livestock and poultry, and on preventing thedepletion of these species due to “their lower productivity and ignorance by localpeople”. Though the Government has given due attention to the conservation ofgenetic resources, the constraint of financial and technical investments, the lack ofexpert staff and the incomplete technical facilities make it impossible to meetrequirements for a modern conservation of genetic resources (Vietnam 1998).

The predominant farming system in Vietnam is rice-based agriculture. TheInternational Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) currently coordinates an in-situ project in the country that addresses genetic diversity in the main ecosystems ofthe country: the Red River Delta (Nghia Hung district) and Mekong River Delta (TraCu district) lowlands, the central coastal zone (Hue), the mountains (Da Bac), and thehighlands (Nho Quan, Sapa and Dac Lac districts). Target crops for study includemung bean (Vigna radiata), rice (Oryza sativa) and taro (Colocasia esculenta). Theproject has commenced with diagnostic surveys covering crop genetic diversity and

10

farmer management. The project aims to integrate conservation and participatorybreeding activities. Various governmental organizations are participating(www.ipgri.cgiar.org/themes/in situ project).

A regional on-farm conservation project of IRRI, completed in 2000, recordedthe amount and distribution of rice varieties under farmer management in India,Vietnam, and the Philippines.

III.4.3. National genetic inventoriesA national Genetic Inventory System for domestic animals and crops has

existed in Vietnam since 1973, financed and coordinated by the Ministry of Science,Technology, and Environment.

A plan to compile a database on agricultural and livestock diversity is nowcoming into effect in some substates of India, under the implementation of theIndia Agriculture Department.

III.4.4. Regional networksThe South Asia Network on Plant Genetic Resources (SANPGR) (formerly

The South Asia Coordinators’ Network [SAC]) was established in 1990 andencompasses six countries in the South Asia region, namely, Bangladesh, Bhutan,India, Nepal, Maldives and Sri Lanka. The national Plant Genetic Resources (PGR)Coordinators and other specialists from member countries meet every two years toreview the progress and to formulate plans for future activities of common interest.The objectives of the SANPGR are to improve conservation and use of PGR throughcollaborative efforts among the member countries(http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/system/regional networks).

RECSEA-PGR is the Regional Co-operation in Southeast Asia for PlantGenetic Resources set up in December 1993. Membership in the RECSEA-PGR isopen to countries in Southeast Asia. Current members are Indonesia, Malaysia, thePhilippines, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam(http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/system/regional networks).

The South East Asian Research Institute for Community Education(SEARICE) provides programme services to partners engaged in plant geneticresources conservation including training, education, information dissemination,technical consultancy and resource mobilisation. Among its projects are included: 1)Community Bio-diversity Conservation and Development, being implemented inSabah, Northern Thailand, the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, and the Philippines, 2)The Seeds of Survival (SOS) Programme, and 3) The Anti-Bio-piracy Programmethat seeks to advocate among the governments of Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia,Malaysia and the Philippines the adoption of policies to regulate access to biologicaland genetic resources leading to the adoption of region-wide protocol.

III.5. Diversity at the landscape level

11

Little mention is made in national plans of conserving agrobiodiversity at thelandscape level. This is partly due to the restricted definition of agrobiodiversity inuse by planners.

III.6. Wild biodiversity in agroecosystems

As mentioned before, the Philippines BAAP (Philippines 1997) ProjectII.A.4 aims to establish and improve in-situ conservation centres of wild relatives ofdomesticated species and varieties. Wild relatives are often found in wild borders andfields around crop lands, but may also be found outside agroecosystems. Also, BAAPProject I.C.2 seeks to promote valuation and accounting of direct and indirect goodsand services from biodiversity and bioresources. Because many wild species aroundcroplands are beneficial to agriculture and household use, this project should promotetheir conservation, albeit indirectly. A few examples of such species are plants thatrepel pests or act as pest traps, natural enemies (parasites and predators) of pests,plants that attract natural enemies, alternative hosts for natural enemies that provide areservoir for the natural enemies, pollinators, wild relatives of crop plants, plants thatimprove soil health and prevent erosion, and wild food plants of both humans andlivestock.

III.7. Traditional knowledge of agrobiodiversity

Strong recognition of the value of traditional knowledge of agrobiodiversity isevident throughout the region. However, steps to conserve it are only now cominginto existence. Some innovative pilot measures are found in the proposed IndianNBSAP, namely organisation of local farmers to display indigenous varieties of cropsat mobile biodiversity festivals that travel from village to village, and holdingdiscussions with them to result in strategy and action plans for conservation andenhancement of agrobiodiversity for each village. A plan to compile a database onagricultural and livestock diversity is now coming into effect in some substates,under the implementation of the India Agriculture Department. The IndiaBiodiversity Bill (India 2000) proposes that the Central Government shall endeavourto respect and protect the knowledge of local people relating to biological diversity, asrecommended by the National Biodiversity Authority, through such measures thatmay include registration of such knowledge at the local, state or national levels, andother measures for protection, including a sui generis system.

In 1995, the Vietnam BAP (Vietnam 1995) recognised the role of people andcommunities in managing natural resources; however, the role of indigenoustraditional systems is only vaguely implied.

The Philippines NBAAP (Philippines 1997) notes that to some indigenouscommunities, some biological resources or sites are sacred and a source of culturalidentity. This type of value attached to a resource contributes to its preservation orsustainable use. More fundamentally, local communities and especially indigenouspeoples have a rich repository of knowledge and practices about the naturalenvironment that contributes to biodiversity conservation. Many of these communitiesoccupy territories, particularly forest areas, which harbour a variety of species. Thecultural and spiritual values attached to biological resources by indigenous peoples

12

constitute a part of the worth of these resources. Project I.C.1 recognises theusefulness of indigenous knowledge systems and practices on biodiversityconservation and sustainable development. Policy exists in the form of an enablinglaw (Republic Act 8371 of 1997) known as the “Indigenous Peoples Right Act”.This act is meant to implement the constitutional mandate (1987) to recognise andpromote the rights of indigenous cultural communities, including the rights to protecttheir traditional territories or ancestral domains, and with this their traditionalresource management practices that have hitherto contributed to the protection ofbiodiversity-rich areas. It does not guarantee biodiversity conservation, however, andmay be weakened in the face of intensifying exposure of indigenous peoples to theforces and agents of environmentally unsustainable economic growth. The people arein effect left to improve their own resource management and strengthen theirorganisational capability to deal with threats to their land and biodiversity.

Philippines Executive Order 247 (1995) on bioprospecting includes aprovision for prospecting of biological and genetic resources in ancestral lands anddomains only with prior informed consent of the Indigenous Cultural Communities(ICCs) concerned, obtained in accordance with their customary laws (Madulid et al.1995).

IV. Policies, regulatory mechanisms and the implications of agriculturaldevelopment plans on agrobiodiversity management

IV.1. Policies and Regulatory Mechanisms for Management of Genetic ResourcesPhilippines Executive Order 247 (Series of 1995) prescribes the guidelines

and establishes a regulatory framework for the prospecting of biological and geneticresources, their by-products and derivatives for scientific, commercial, and otherpurposes. The Philippines Agricultural Sector Report to the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD) (Philippines 1995a) states that the Trade Related aspectsof Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), provides for the option to patent plantvarieties or to adopt an effective sui generis protection.

The Philippines Republic Act 7308, or the Seed Industry Development Act of1992, is policy meant to promote and accelerate the development of the seed industry,particularly to conserve, preserve, and develop the plant genetic resources of thenation. It should encourage and hasten the organisation of all sectors engaged in theindustry, integrate all their activities, and provide assistance to them. Furthermore, itis aimed to promote the seed industry as a preferred area of investment. It shouldprovide the private sector with encouragement to engage in seed research anddevelopment, and in mass production and distribution of good quality seeds. Lastly,the policy is meant to provide the local seed industry with protection against unfaircompetition from imported seeds. Section 15 prohibits export of rare species,varieties, lines, and strains of plants from the country except for scientific andinternational exchange purposes.

IV. 2. High-Value Crops and Market-Oriented Production SystemsThe Philippines Republic Act 7900, or the High-Value Crops Development

Act of 1995, promotes production, processing, marketing, and distribution of high-value crops for export to augment the foreign exchange earnings of the country.

13

These high value crops are defined as non-traditional crops that include, amongothers, coffee, cacao, various fruits, potato, ubi (a purple yam), various vegetables,spices and condiments, and cut flower and ornamental plants. The “traditional” cropsinclude rice, maize, coconut, and sugar, although these are not necessarily indigenous.

The National Agricultural Plan of India (Ninth Plan Document: Agricultureand Allied Activities, section 4.1 in the Plan) deals little with biodiversity except in afew implied cases, and is heavily slanted toward market-oriented production systemsthat may undermine biodiversity in and around agricultural ecosystems. In section4.1.141, the major objectives of the Ninth Plan are stated to include conservation,planned enhancement and utilisation of agrobiodiversity through evolution of high-yielding hybrids and varieties. Clearly, though conservation is mentioned, the thrustis not toward conservation of traditional varieties but toward a shift to newcommercial varieties with all of their inherent problems for the small-holdertraditional farmer and for biodiversity conservation in general.

IV.3. Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Equitable Sharing of Agricultural GeneticResources, and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

The Philippines BAAP (Philippines 1997) is geared mostly toward non-agricultural biodiversity but Strategy III promotes formulation of an integrated policyand legislative framework for the conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharingof benefits of biological diversity. Within it, Activity III.3 addresses identification,delineation, and management of ancestral domain of indigenous peoples. To promotethe rights of indigenous cultural communities (ICCs), the Philippines passed anenabling law (Section III.7, in this report).

The India Biodiversity Bill proposes to protect the intellectual property rightsof its people. It holds that the Central Government shall endeavour to respect andprotect the knowledge of local people relating to biological diversity, asrecommended by the National Biodiversity Authority. It shall do so through suchmeasures that may include registration of such knowledge at the local, state ornational levels, and other measures for protection, including the sui generis system(India 2000).

After an extensive and intensive consultation process involving the stakeholders,the Central Government of India (India 2000) has decided to bring legislation withthe following salient features:• to regulate access to biological resources of the country with the purpose of

securing equitable share in benefits arising out of the use of biological resources;and associated knowledge relating to biological resources;

• to conserve and sustainably use biological diversity;• to respect and protect knowledge of local communities related to biodiversity;• to secure sharing of benefits with local people as conservers of biological

resources and holders of knowledge and information relating to the use ofbiological resources;

• to conserve and develop areas important from the standpoint of biologicaldiversity by declaring them as biological diversity heritage sites;

• to protect and rehabilitate threatened species;• to involve institutions of self-government in the broad scheme of the

implementation of the Act through constitution of committees.

14

The proposed legislation primarily addresses the issue of access to geneticresources and associated knowledge by foreign individuals, institutions or companies,and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of these resources andknowledge to the country and the people. Some exemptions are proposed to allowIndian citizens within the country to carry out research on genetic resources.Traditional healers may also be beneficiaries of proposed exemptions fromrequirements by citizens, corporations, and associations or organisations to give priorintimation to the State Biodiversity Board about obtaining biological resources forcommercial utilisation (India 2000).

With regard to equitable sharing of benefits, the India Biodiversity Bill (India2000) stipulates that the Biodiversity Authority consult with local bodies beforeimposing terms and conditions for securing equitable sharing of benefits. Monetarybenefits would be deposited into a National Biodiversity Fund except in cases wherebiological resources and knowledge are accessed from a specific individual or groupof individuals, in which case monetary benefits will be made directly to the providers.

Conflict exists over the interpretation of proposed policy to protect the rights offarmers and their plant varieties. The M. S. Swaminathan Foundation in India(MSSRF) reported that it has been working with the Government of India (Ministryof Agriculture and Cooperation and Ministry of Environment and Forests) in thedevelopment of the following two pieces of legislation:• Plant Variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act• Biodiversity ActIt claims that the draft Acts prepared by MSSRF protect the interests of both farmer-cultivators and farmer-conservers, and that the draft Biodiversity Act provides forpeoples’ participation in biodiversity conservation and sustainable and equitable usethrough Panchayat level Biodiversity Councils and State Biodiversity Boards. AVoluntary Code of Conduct was developed to ensure that symbiotic bio-partnerships,and not bio-piracy, govern the relationships between the primary conservers andholders of knowledge and the commercial companies, who use their knowledge andmaterial.

Kothari (1999), however, stresses that the draft Bill leans heavily towards theformal sector breeders, and that farmers' rights are restricted to the ability to save, use,exchange, share, or sell (except sale for the purpose of reproduction under commercialmarketing arrangements), varieties that are given IPR protection. While providingbreeders the possibility of receiving IPRs (and thereby exclusive marketing rights for aspecified period), the Bill does not provide corresponding protection to the varieties andknowledge already developed by farmers over millennia. It gives no incentives tofarmers to continue innovating. The national authority that is to be set up under the Billapparently does not contain representative farmers or NGOs.

The Bill, however, does contain some advantages to traditional farmers (Kothari1999). It contains critical clauses that allow the government to exclude plant varietiesfrom the purview of IPRs if necessary, in public interest, or to compulsorily shiftlicence for protected varieties to certain breeders if it is felt that the IPR holder is actingagainst public interest. Also, farmers will be able to appeal to the relevant authority ifthey feel that their variety has been used by an IPR holder, and receive appropriate

15

compensation if their appeal is upheld. However, Kothari (1999) has little confidencethat the government will act in the interests of small farmers and local communities,and will rarely use these clauses. More explicitly farmer- and biodiversity-orientedlegislation is necessary, as are mandatory clauses to conduct environmental impactassessments to ensure that new varieties do not displace traditional biodiversity.

IV.4. Decentralisation in Resource ManagementPhilippines Local Government Units (LGU), under existing Local

Government Code Republic Act 7160, are given authority to exercise their power inmanaging the country’s resources. The decentralisation of resource management is apositive development. LGUs can reclassify agricultural lands and provide for themanner of their utilisation and disposition. The national government is required toconsult with LGUs to regulate implementation of projects that could cause, amongothers, loss of crop land, range land, or forest cover and the extraction of animal orplant species. LGUs can implement community-based forestry projects, and supportthe agricultural sector through the distribution of planting materials, provision ofagricultural extension and on-site research services and facilities. The LocalGovernment Code provides for preferential treatment and protection for themarginalised sectors such as the community-based forestry and other agriculture-related projects by providing extension services and research facilities. Provincialgovernments, in particular, are required to enforce forestry laws on community-basedprojects and the protection of the environment.

After a new National Forest Policy was passed in India in1988 that identifiedthe need to motivate forest communities to develop and protect their forests, severalstates allocated partial public forest management authority to forest communities.The National Joint Forest Management resolution in 1990 supported the rights andresponsibilities of forest communities (Poffenberger and McGean 1996). This hasresulted in about 30,000 village-level committees conserving and regenerating 10million hectares of forest land (McNeely and Scherr 2001). Also, a greater role forthe panchayat (a local governing body made up of small wards) in ecosystemmanagement has been envisaged by the 73rd Amendment Act to the Constitution ofIndia by placing new matters under its jurisdiction, including land improvement, landconsolidation and soil conservation, socialforestry and minor forest produce.

IV.5. Protected Agricultural LandA network of protected areas for agriculture has been established by the

Philippines Department of Agriculture (Philippines 1998) to cover the following:• all irrigable and potentially irrigable lands• all alluvial plains highly suitable for agricultural production as determined

by the Bureau of Soils and Water Management• all sustainable lands that are traditional sources of food• all croplands that support the existing economic scale of production

required to sustain the economic viability of existing agriculturalinfrastructure and agro-based enterprises in the province or region

• all productive lands in low calamity-risk areas suited for the production ofeconomic trees and other cash crops, and

• all agricultural lands that are ecologically fragile and whose conversionwill result in serious environmental problems.

16

IV.6. Integration of NBSAPs with National Sectoral Plans, Programmes, andProjects

Philippines Memorandum Order No. 289 (1995) directs the integration of thePhilippines’ strategy for biological diversity conservation in the sectoral plans,programmes and projects of the national government agencies and theoperationalisation of the objectives of sustainable biological diversity resourcemanagement and development as embodied in the strategy. The Philippines BAAP(Philippines 1997), Strategy III, promotes formulation of an integrated policy andlegislative framework for the conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharing ofbenefits of biological diversity. Within it, Activity III.5 addresses formulation ofguidelines on land use planning and biodiversity conservation and integration thereofin the plans of concerned agencies (Table 2).

IV.7. Biodiversity Management CommitteesThe Biodiversity Bill of India (India 2000) section 41 proposes that:

(1) Every local body shall constitute a Biodiversity Management Committee within itsarea for the purpose of promoting conservation, sustainable use and documentation ofbiological diversity including preservation of habitats, conservation of land races, folkvarieties and cultivars, domesticated stocks and breeds of animals and micro-organisms and chronicling of knowledge relating to biological diversity.

(2) The National Biodiversity Authority and the State Biodiversity Boards shallconsult the Biodiversity Management Committees while taking any decision relatingto the use of biological resources and knowledge associated with such resourcesoccurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the Biodiversity ManagementCommittee.

(3) The Biodiversity Management Committees may levy charges by way of collectionfee from any person for accessing or collecting any biological resource from areasfalling within its territorial jurisdiction.

Environmental Impact AssessmentThe India Biodiversity Bill (2000) proposes that the Central Government shall

undertake measures:(1) Wherever necessary, for assessment of environmental impact of that project whichis likely to have adverse effect on biological diversity, with a view to avoid orminimise such effects and where appropriate provide for public participation in suchassessment;

(2) To regulate, manage or control the risks associated with the use and release ofliving modified organisms resulting from biotechnology likely to have adverse impacton the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and human health.

The Philippines Investment Priorities Plan (IPP)(Executive Order 226) of1992 at present includes both agricultural and non-agricultural based industries.Among these are projects in crops and aquaculture. The IPP contains a provision thatrequires compliance with existing environmental and pollution standards for projectscritical to the environment in general. In theory, the provision should address the

17

same environmental impact concerns brought out in the India Biodiversity Bill (India2000).

Inclusion of Agrobiodiversity in National Biodiversity Action PlansThe India Biodiversity Bill proposes a measure to provide a framework for

information exchange between general and agricultural biodiversity planners. Section13(1) proposes that the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) of India mayconstitute a committee to deal with agrobiodiversity. (Agrobiodiversity is definedthere as the biological diversity of agriculture-related species and their wild relatives.)Section 13 (2) states: Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the NBAmay constitute such number of committees as it deems fit for the efficient dischargeof its duties and performance of its functions under this Act. It continues: 13 (3) Acommittee constituted under this section shall co-opt such number of persons, who arenot members of the NBA, as it may think fit and the persons so co-opted shall havethe rights to attend the meetings of the committee and take part in its proceedings butshall not have the right to vote (India 2000). The inclusion of an agrobiodiversitycommittee in the NBA is a step in the right direction toward inclusion ofagrobiodiversity concerns in the country’s NBSAP.

The Vietnam BAP (Vietnam1995) was created with consultation of high-level government, local and international scientists, planners, managers, villagers, andresource users. The Plan added to previous planning documents by includingagricultural systems as targets of biodiversity conservation. It also advocates the roleof local government in decision-making, as well as the role of people, communities,and NGOs in managing natural resources.

The Philippines BAAP (Philippines 1997) has already integrated manycomponents of agrobiodiversity conservation (Table 2). Among them are productionof plant, animal, and microbial resource inventories, inventories of indigenousknowledge and practices and protection thereof, valuation and accounting of goodsand services from biodiversity, establishement of in-situ agrobiodiversityconservation centres and of gene banks, and formulating policy and frameworks forthe conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharing of benefits of biodiversity.

V. Constraints to the use of sound policies and practices

The following constraints are generally regional in nature, but some may be morerelevant in some countries than in others:

• Lack of land-use policies• Conflicting agendas of government and small-holders: subsidised supply of HYV

seeds and other inputs by governments, and lack of incentives for marketingtraditional crops

• Weak economies, necessitating external input to meet planning goals• Poor knowledge, communication, and education on existing agrobiodiversity• Knowledge and policy gaps in agricultural biotechnology• Weak enforcement or compliance with environmental standards• Population pressure and poverty• Lack of commitment/enforcement of trade issues that are linked to the

environment

18

• The incentive structure for agriculture is still mainly subsidy-based and not gearedto sustainability

• Policy trend toward maximising profit has severely threatened species and breedsthat were bred for domestic uses

• Policies are still geared toward development rather than management ofagricultural resources

• Weak implementation of management policies• Monitoring and evaluation plans for biodiversity in the agricultural sector are

focusing on domesticated exotic species and varieties, especially livestock.

Table 1 presents the major threats and concerns for Philippines agrobiodiversity,which can generally be used as examples for the region.

More specific to India are the following constraints that need to be addressed:• Many clauses in the national agricultural plan of India conflict with the

Biodiversity Bill although the listed duties of the Central Government includeintegration of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into relevant sectoraland cross sectoral plans, programmes and policies.

• There have been recent moves by the Indian government and some stategovernments to relax land ceilings and other regulations that restricted theconversion of agricultural into non-agricultural land. The result will be thatindustrial level agriculture, or even non-agricultural land uses such as industry, willfind it easier to acquire land.

• The introduction of compulsory environmental impact assessment (EIA) foragricultural projects is incomplete. While EIA is now compulsory for mostdevelopment projects like dams and industries, it is not yet geared towards lookingat the impacts on agricultural biodiversity. In addition, many agriculturaldevelopment projects are not subject to any EIA at all. Finally, the process is notparticipatory (Kothari 1999).

• Freeing of trade restrictions through World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreementswill threaten the livelihood of small and marginal farmers when the markets areopen to large quantities of imports from the West. Indian markets are expected tobe flooded with cheap grains, pulses, fruits, and vegetables that will competeheavily with locally-grown produce (S. Padmanabhan and A. Kothari, personalcommunication).

Vietnam suffers especially from financial and technical problems leading to thefollowing constraints:§ By-law regulations and supporting documents are needed to strengthen

enforcement of the Law on Environment Protection (Vietnam 1995).§ The NBSAP is promoting an end to traditional shifting cultivation because

population pressure is too high to allow it to be sustainable; it aims to stabilize thelives of people and raise their awareness so they will join the protection forcevoluntarily.

§ Constraints to conservation in general include insufficient institutionalarrangements, limited community participation, and insufficient expertise in socialand economic development (Vietnam 1995).

§ Though the Vietnamese Government has given due attention to the conservationof genetic resources, the constraint of financial and technical investments, the lackof a contingent of highly qualified staff, and incomplete technical facilities make

19

it impossible to meet requirements for a modern conservation of genetic resources(Vietnam 1998).

A major regional weakness in interpreting agricultural biodiversity issues is thatnational documents appear to restrict the definition of agrobiodiversity to crop andlivestock species and their wild relatives, rather than the broader ecosystems in whichthese exist (see Section II.4 , this report). Such views exclude wild species thatprovide services to agriculture, such as pollinators, natural enemies, soil organisms,and other species that make up the agroecosystem.

Another problem that pervades conservation issues is the notion that humanpopulation growth is inevitable, and that conservation must necessarily come for thesustainability of a burgeoning population. However, unchecked population growth indeveloping countries whose economies are agriculture based, whose people areimpoverished, and whose resources are already being depleted can only exacerbatethe problem and slow development. The governments of India and Vietnam are, atleast in principle, taking up the challenge to slow population growth.

VI. Examples of best practices

VI.1. Soil Biodiversity

VI.1.1. Soil fauna and organic fertilisers in tea gardens of Tamil Nadu, IndiaTea is a high-value plantation crop in India. In recent years, green tea production

has stopped increasing, despite increasing application of external inputs such asfertilisers and pesticides. The long-term exploitation of soil in tea gardens has led toimportant changes in various physical, chemical and biological attributes of the soil,decreasing organic matter content, cation exchange, water-holding capacity, soil biota(reduced up to 70%) and pH, simultaneously increasing concentrations of toxicaluminium.

In response to these limitations on tea production, a patented technology entitled"Fertilisation Bio-Organique dans les Plantations Arborées" (FBO, for short), wasrecently developed by Parry Agro Industries Ltd., in association with the FrenchInstitut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) and Sambalpur University(Orissa, India). This technology aims to improve the physical, chemical andbiological soil conditions by inoculating a mixture of low and high quality organicmaterials (tea prunings and manure) and earthworms into trenches dug between therows of tea plants. Measurements performed at two sites, beginning in 1994, haveshown that this technique is much more effective than either100% organic or 100%inorganic fertilisers alone. It increased yields on average by up to 276% and profits byan equal percentage (from around US$2,000 per hectare using conventionaltechniques to about US$7,600 per hectare using FBO) in the first year of application.This technique has been extended to other countries and is now being used in over 80hectares, and over 20 million earthworms are being produced each year. Details onthe methodology for its application are described in the patent document (ref. PCT/FR97/01363) (M. Swift, Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Program, c/o UNESCO,

20

Nairobi, personal communication).

VI.2. Biodiversity that Provides Mitigation of Pests and Diseases

VI.2.1. Integrated Pest Management and Biodiversity Utilisation in Cotton in IndiaThere is a success story from the cotton belt of Karnataka, where an FAO

supported, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) project has been operating in sixvillages. IPM is the careful integration of a number of available pest controltechniques that discourages the development of pest populations. It keeps pesticideuse and other interventions to levels that are economically justified and safe forhuman health and the environment, and enhances production of all functionallyimportant species. Fifty-two percent of the total pesticides used in India are oncotton and the expense to the farmer is very high, often resulting in net loss. Theproject has succeeded in changing farmers' thinking about pest control. An intensivetraining of trainers was accomplished at a cost of half a million rupees. These trainersnow train the farmers over the whole cycle of the crop. The farmers become asknowledgeable as the experts about cotton IPM. They are able to explain IPM, theIntegrated Nutrient Management system (INM), point out beneficial and harmfulinsects and birds, explain the uses of various traps and even some economic models.It has had a great impact and they have now formed their own club and are spreadingtheir knowledge to others. They are expecting a good harvest without resorting to anysynthetic insecticide spray where they were using 15-20 rounds earlier.

The approach used to reach and enhance local human expertise for IPM in theregion is through Farmer Field Schools (FFS), which build on local knowledge andexpertise. About 25 farmers in FSS spend five to six hours together weekly; two hoursare spent in the field observing the ecosystem and analysing its biodiversity. Theycollect arthropods in plastic bags and after the field work discuss what they haveobserved, prepare poster diagrams and present findings to their fellow farmers. Theyclassify populations into functional groups depending on their trophic position in theagro-ecosystem (herbivores, predators, etc.). Farmers observe populations in the fieldbut also test their trophic linkages by setting up “insect zoos”. These answer theirquestions on “what eats what” and “how many are eaten”, etc. Such experimentsadvance farmers’ knowledge and lead to further experimentation with agriculturalbiodiversity, for example, the planting of different rice varieties that can make a bigdifference to disease resistance or other factors. In the case of double cropped irrigatedrice in Vietnam, with annual yields over 300% of the world average, farmers’advanced knowledge about rice field biodiversity has also led to experimentation withdifferent management options. One example is growing a crop of fish with rice in thesame field, using the rice field to grow fish between two rice crops, or growing fishafter rice instead of a second rice crop. Financial benefits per hectare surveyed in asample of FFSs in more than 1,300 villages averaged from 20 to 25% higher in IPMfields than in regular fields. Better utilisation of resources, healthy crops of rice and fishand increased income and food security reinforce farmers’ acceptance of IPM and theirrejection of pesticides. However, a prerequisite for these changes to take place is anenabling policy environment, for example, removing perverse pesticide subsidies or, asin India, putting a tax on pesticides. The increased skill and empowerment of farmers’groups through FFSs also leads to stronger local accountability and the ability offarmers to determine local policies that increase benefits to production, income and theenvironment, including agricultural biodiversity (adapted from a case study presented

21

by Peter Kenmore and Matthias Halwart, FAO).

VI.2.2. IPM for Highland Vegetables in the PhilippinesThe Commonwealth Agriculture Bureau International (CABI) Bioscience IPM

for Highland Vegetables project was set up in 1994 and is funded by the AsianDevelopment Bank. Insecticide resistance and human health problems had become sosevere that the IPM project set up FFSs to increase awareness about the harmfuleffects of pesticides, increase knowledge of natural enemies, and encouragediscussion on best husbandry practice among farmers. The project reached 1,719farmers in 65 FFS groups, and trained 48 trainers, mainly from local government.Resulting from this was the development by farmers of a range of alternative pest-control methods. There has been an 80% decrease in pesticide use in the wet season(55% in the dry season) and the synthetic fertiliser rate has halved, giving farmers anet rise in income of 17%. Vegetable yields have also increased by about 20%. FFSsare now considered a good investment by municipal authorities (Pretty and Hine2000).

VI.2.3. Pest amelioration through modified resource management in the PhilippinesSimple intercrops of maize and peanuts help to control the maize-stem borer.

Populations of a spider that feeds and controls the stem borer caterpillars areencouraged to develop in maize crops by intercropping with peanuts that providehabitat and prey (springtails) for the juvenile spiders (McNeely and Scherr 2001).

VI.2.4. Rice IPM in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam (Pretty and Hine 2000)Researchers with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Ministry of

Agriculture and Rural Development of Vietnam, and Visayas State College ofAgriculture, Philippines, have been engaged in a unique and successful initiative toencourage the adoption of more sustainable rice production in the Mekong Delta,Vietnam. Surveys in the early 1990s showed that insecticide use by farmers washigh, particularly to control leaf-feeding larvae that caused visible defoliation.Farmers believed that such visible damage caused yield loss, but researchersdiscovered that leaf-damage during the vegetative stages of rice rarely reduces yields.Indeed, use of insecticides was more likely to kill beneficial insects and lead tooutbreaks of secondary pests.

Through an innovative media campaign backed with FFSs, farmers in LongAm Province were encouraged to test whether insecticide spraying is needed for leaf-folder control in the first 40 days after sowing. The campaign distributed 380,000leaflets and 35,000 posters, organised 1,390 demonstrations and broadcast a radiodrama 1,550 times. This reached 97% of the 20,000 farmers in the study region, and82% of those in the whole province, a total of 172,000. In the two and a half yearsafter the campaign, mean insecticide spraying fell from 3.35 to 1.56 sprays per farmerper season. Farmers’ perceptions had changed substantially – 77% had stopped earlyseason spraying, and 20-30% had stopped using insecticides altogether.

Other provinces in the Mekong Delta adopted the approach, and theircampaigns have reached 92% of the 2.3 million farmers – who have now reducedspray frequencies to one per season (a 70% reduction). Rice yields have not changedduring this period – remaining at about 4tons per hectare. Researchers concluded thatthe two interventions – detailed understanding provided by FFSs, combined with

22

dissemination through the media campaign -- played complementary roles inchanging both farmers’ beliefs and practices. Researchers are now exploring ways todevelop targeted advice for other phases in the rice cycle, as the total potentialaudience of rice farmers in Asia is more than 200 million.

VI.2.5. Improving agricultural biodiversity functions in intensive rice productionthrough Integrated Pest Management and Aquatic Life Management in Vietnam

Farmers who achieve higher production of rice and other crops by using IPMsystems are also conserving and enhancing agricultural biodiversity. Conservation ofagricultural biodiversity is an essential part of intensification to increase agriculturalproductivity. In rice monocultures, wider agricultural biodiversity is important. Forexample, species that decompose organic matter contribute through an aquatic foodchain to the build up of predator populations early in the season, even before the riceis planted. Ecologically, this renders the agroecosystem more resilient and thereforemore productive. When pesticides are not used, about 700 arthropod species can befound in paddies that keep the balance between pests and their natural enemies(predators and parasites) and prevent pest outbreaks. Populations of fish, snails, frogs,aquatic insects and other species that constitute an important part of the diet of manyrice-farming households are also enhanced in these IPM systems.

VI.3. Crop and Livestock Genetic Resources

VI.3.1. Regional networksThe South Asia Network on Plant Genetic Resources (SANPGR) was

renamed in 1988 from the earlier South Asia Coordinators’ Network that wasestablished in 1990. Six countries in the South Asia region, namely, Bangladesh,Bhutan, India, Nepal, Maldives and Sri Lanka are the members of this Network. Thesecretariat (interim) is located at IPGRI South Asia Office in New Delhi. The nationalplant genetic resources (PGR) Coordinators and other specialists from membercountries meet every two years to review the progress and to formulate plans foractivities of common interest. The objectives of the SANPGR are to improveconservation and use of PGR through collaborative efforts among the membercountries, as follows:• To enhance scientific interaction among the National Programmes and identify

priorities for research and training• To promote exchange of germplasm and sharing of information and technologies• To foster collaboration for joint research and development activities• To derive greater benefits for human resource development from the strengths of

the partners• To provide a platform for developing common policies and harmonising regional

views on PGR issues and related policy matters.

The Regional Co-operation in Southeast Asia for Plant Genetic Resources(RECSEA-PGR) was set up in December 1993. Membership in the RECSEA-PGR isopen to countries in Southeast Asia. Current members are Indonesia, Malaysia, thePhilippines, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam(http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/system/regional networks).

Its objectives are:

23

• To develop information systems that can be used to rationalise collections andprovide information on germplasm technologies and related policies to membercountries.

• To identify research topics that can strengthen national plant genetic resources(PGR) programmes.

• To identify appropriate in-situ and ex-situ conservation strategies for the region'sPGR.

• To identify the training needs and provide information on training opportunities tomember countries.

• To identify and solicit funding to achieve these objectives.• To interact with regional and international PGR-related organisations like IPGRI

and FAO on projects and activities.• To identify the common elements to strengthen the position of Southeast Asian

countries in international fora.• To facilitate, exchange information, and interact with regional fora.• To promote public awareness on the value, conservation and use of PGR.

The South East Asian Research Institute for Community Education(SEARICE) provides program services to partners engaged in PGR conservationincluding training, education, information dissemination, technical consultancy andresource mobilisation. Among its projects are included: 1) Community Bio-diversity Conservation and Development (CBDC), where SEARICE isimplementing the Asian component of the global Community BiodiversityConservation and Development (CBDC) Program. The CBDC is a partnershipbetween formal and informal systems aiming towards strengthening community PGRconservation and development. The program is being implemented in Sabah,Northern Thailand, the Mekong Delta in Vietnam and the Philippines. 2) The Seedsof Survival (SOS) Program, under implementation since 1992, aims to promotePGR conservation and development at the community level. SEARICE continues toprovide technical assistance, management advice and education materials to localNGOs and people’s organisations involved in PGR conservation and developmentunder this program. 3) The Anti-Bio-piracy Program is a community-orientedinvestigative research and policy advocacy work that seeks to advocate among thegovernments of Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines theadoption of policies to regulate access to biological and genetic resources leading tothe adoption of region-wide protocol. The program seeks to identify trends in bio-prospecting activities in Southeast Asia, heighten public awareness on bio-piracyactivities in the region and their impact, develop the capacities of local communities,people’s organizations and NGOs to protect their interests, and preserve bio-diversityand indigenous knowledge systems.

VI.3.2. In-situ conservation guidelinesGuidelines for southern India on in-situ conservation of wild relatives and

related taxa of cultivated plants are offered online, including case studies(http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/hpg/cesmg/situfin.html#SEC1). The guidelines are welldesigned and applicable to much of the region.

VI.4. Diversity at the Landscape Level

24

VI.4.1. Reduction of land conversion by increasing productivity:VI.4.1.1. Increasing yields of lowland rice reduces extensive hillside farming in thePhilippines

Population growth in the Philippine frontier province of Palawan has beenparticularly high (4.6% per year), and resulted in agricultural expansion into marginaland environmentally sensitive areas, promoting acute upland deforestation. Thearea’s main staple is rice and its main cash crop is maize; farm size averages 2.6 to5.1 hectares. To intensify and raise agricultural production, the Philippine NationalIrrigation Administration constructed or upgraded a number of small-scale communalirrigation systems in Palawan. These are in the lowlands, but most are adjacent toinhabited upland forest areas.

Household surveys show that irrigation allowed farmers to increase croppingintensity to 1.9 crops per year, whereas on rainfed farms it was only 1.2. They usedless family labour and less overall labour during each cropping season, but more hiredlabour. By raising the opportunity for paid labour, intensification of lowland irrigatedcropping induced upland farmers to participate less in lower-paying forest-clearingand forest product extraction (hunting, charcoal making, resin collection), and more inlowland cropping. After the irrigation systems were installed in the lowlands, annualforest clearing by upland households declined by 48%. After the introduction oflowland irrigation, average wage income rose nearly three-fold among uplandhouseholds that engaged in work outside their own farms. These positive impactsresulted in part from the fact that the upland area is physically adjacent to the lowlandirrigated area, reducing the cost of working outside their own farms. Also, there wasrelatively little investment needed in labour-saving technology among lowlandfarmers, which would have partly offset the employment gains (Shively and Martinez2001).

VI.4.2. Develop Habitat Networks in Uncultivated Areas:VI.4.2.1. Soil erosion barriers with native plants in the Philippines

Contour hedgerows are rows of perennial shrubs established along the contourthat have been promoted on steep lands to reduce erosion and produce organic matterfor soil improvement. Most contour hedgerows in the country used exotic grasses orshrubs that require nursery development and considerable labour for establishment.In the early 1990s, researchers at the International Centre of Research in Agroforestry(ICRAF) in the Philippines, frustrated at farmers’ low adoption of hedgerowtechnology, began a series of studies to identify the most cost-effective approach tocontour planting of perennials. They discovered that natural vegetative strips (NVS)– contour rows left uncultivated during ploughing so that natural vegetation couldgrow there – were not only the least expensive (zero cost for planting materials andestablishment), but erosion control was nearly as effective as by planted shrubhedgerows. Studies found rows as far apart as 2 to 4 meters elevation distance servednearly as well for erosion control as more closely-spaced rows, but removed muchless area from production (Mercado et al. 1997). Further research developed a verylow-cost method for laying out initial contour lines, and for enriching the naturalvegetative strips with high value fruit trees from which farmers could earn cashincome.

Since its introduction in1996, thousands of farmers have adopted this low-costtechnology in the densely populated steep farmlands of northern Mindanao. Thenatural vegetative strips are not only valuable for maintaining soil fertility on farms

25

and protecting local watersheds, but they also provide important habitat for wildbiodiversity. A study of floral composition and community characteristics of fieldswith NVS confirmed the high diversity of native plant species, while the presence ofuntilled areas provided habitat for native fauna (Ramiaramanana 1993).Economically profitable timber and fruit tree species in the NVS further expand theirhabitat value for wildlife.

VI.4.3. Modify resource management practices:VI.4.3.1. Regenerating native forests through joint management in India

Following India’s independence in 1947, forest policy emphasisednationalisation and commercial utilisation of the country’s national forests. Thenational government, however, was unable to manage these resources effectively,instead expanding exotic tree species plantations to supply fast-growing demand. Bythe 1980s, less than half of this “forest” land had good tree cover, and subsistenceforest products became scarce. In response to this degradation, thousands ofcommunities, primarily in eastern India’s tribal forest tracts, took action to protecttheir degrading forests. They organised hamlet-based forest protection groups whohalted cutting and grazing, often initiating rapid regeneration of the natural forests.Researchers and NGOs, recognising the potential of natural forest regeneration, beganto support these village initiatives by developing methods to accelerate naturalregeneration and sustainably manage product extraction. After a new National ForestPolicy was passed in 1988, identifying the need to motivate forest communities todevelop and protect their forests, several states allocated partial public forestmanagement authority to forest communities. The National Joint Forest Managementresolution in 1990 supported the rights and responsibilities of forest communities(Poffengerger and McGean 1996).

Today, an estimated 30,000 village-level committees are protecting andregenerating 10 million hectares of forests (Bahuguna 2000). Village forests aremanaged to provide a flow of subsistence products like fuelwood, medicines, fodderand condiments, and some income from commercial timber sales. Their biodiversityvalue is enhanced many-fold relative to their previous degraded state, whilebiodivrsity is also enhanced in adjacent areas because environmental services offorests are recovering. The extent of habitat improvement for many types of wildlifemay be greater than that provided by many of India’s official protected areas.

VI.5. Wild Biodiversity in Agroecosystems

VI.5.1. Expand wild biodiversity Reserves:VI.5.1.1. Buffer zones to protect rhinos and tigers in a national park in Nepal

Competition between humans and rhinos, tigers, and other large mammalsaround the Royal Chitwan National Park has caused major conservation problems.Tigers are major predators of cattle, and rhinos can significantly damage rice andother crops. People living around the park derive up to 80% of their needs forfirewood and fodder from the forest. In 1993, pioneering legislation empowered thegovernment of Nepal to declare areas surrounding Chitwan as a buffer zone, and forlocal User Group Committees to use 30-50% of park revenues for managingcommunity forests, income generation activities, community development work, etc.A community-based ecotourism project, under the auspices of the Baghmara UserGroup Committee, was granted land management rights by the government in 1995.

26

The Baghmara Group constructed nature trails for elephant-back safaris and a wildlifeviewing tower where tourists can stay overnight. Within the first six months ofoperation, nearly 8,000 tourists visited the Baghmara wildlife viewing area andgenerated nearly US$200,000 in revenues, allowing the Baghmara Group to refurbishthree schools and a clinic. Half of annual income will go to support the National Parkand about 5% will be retained by the Baghmara Group. An area that had been largelydeforested and supported little wildlife before this conservation investment has nowbecome one of the most popular tourist destinations in Nepal (83,000 tourists peryear), based on elephant-back tours into the riverine grasslands to view rhinos andother mammals, birds, and reptiles. Villagers in the area receive incomes of about$200 per elephant, plus $3 per trip. The income has enabled them to build biogasplants and smokeless stoves, provide training to local women’s groups, and carry outnumerous other activities that reduce human pressure on the park. The local villagersare now convinced that rhinos are a critical tourism attraction and they claim to dowhatever they can to support conservation (McNeely 1999).

VI.6. Traditional Knowledge of Agrobiodiversity

VI.6.1. Innovations in the NBSAP Process and Revival of Indigenous Crops in IndiaThe Deccan area succeeded in bringing farmer participation to the ongoing

NBSAP process, which proved to be useful also in reviving nearly extinct cropvarieties. A biodiversity festival was organised in which about 70 villages around theZaheerabad region of Deccan were visited by bullock carts displaying seeds of avariety of crops. Discussions with farmers took place in each village aboutagrobiodiversity that they planned to conserve, enhance for sustainable use, andequitably distribute. This resulted in a BSAP for agrobiodiversity conservation foreach village.

Key participants reported that the response to the festival had been enormous,including from many big cash-cropping farmers who were sceptical of the return totraditional seeds, but nevertheless were sufficiently impressed to promise to try them.In many villages, elders recounted how in so many ways their lives were better offwhen they had the old seeds now nearly gone.

The discussions amongst the farmers brought up many crucial benefits ofmixed organic farming: an increase in the nutritive values of the food they consumed,a variety of fodder available for their cattle, an enhancement of soil fertility andprevention of its erosion, an increase in immunity against illnesses and disease, adecline in pest attacks, and a means of managing climatic unpredictability. Manychallenges and constraints were also voiced, one of the biggest ones being theshortage of farmyard manure. Over the years it has become increasingly difficult forfarmers to maintain their livestock. There has been a reduction in the availability offodder. Grazing lands previously available to rural communities are oftenappropriated for various developmental purposes, with little thought about theconsequences to villagers. What also came up repeatedly was the need for a change ingovernment policies to boost to the marketing value of traditional varieties, by evenincluding them in the Public Distribution System of the State (S. Padmanabhan and A.Kothari, Kalpavriksh - Environmental Action Group, personal communication).

27

VI.6.2. Reviving Traditional Crops and Practices in Jardhargaon, IndiaRecognising that modern techniques of agriculture that government extension

officers were bringing them are yielding only short-term benefits, some farmers haverevived traditional practices in the village of Jardhargaon. One farmer, for instance, istrying out 150 varieties each of rice and beans, along with other traditional crops likemillets, and then spreading back to other farmers those varieties that are particularlyuseful. He and others have formed a Beej Bachao Andolan (Save the SeedsMovement). The Andolan has actively pursued the revival of traditional farmingmethods, such as baranaja, in which about a dozen crop species grown together yielda variety of produce that fulfil a variety of domestic requirements, while maintainingsoil fertility (A. Kothari, Kalpavriksh – Environmental Action Group, personalcommunication).

VI.7. Policies and Regulatory Mechanisms

VI.7.1. Individualized Land Rights Reduce Deforestation in VietnamIndividualized land rights in Vietnam have led to agricultural intensification

and regeneration of forests. Based on community-level data from three decades,Tachibana et al. (2001) compared agricultural intensification with extensification dueto shifting agriculture. They stress the relevance of agricultural practices fordeforestation in hilly areas, and conclude that strengthened land rights tend to deterdeforestation.

VI.8. Multi-faceted Conservation Approaches

VI.8.1. Permaculture Practice and Agrobiodiversity Conservation in IndiaThe Deccan Development Society (DDS) was started in 1983 in the

Zaheerabad region of Medak district, Andhra Pradesh, by a group of professionalsfrom nearby Hyderabad. Its main aim was to regenerate the livelihoods of the peopleby linking crucial environmental and economic factors to bring true developmentalchange in the region. The promotion of permaculture, a variant of organic or nature-based farming, has been one of its main activities.

DDS works with small-holder and marginal women farmers, mostly Dalits.The women have organised themselves into sanghas, and today there are over 4,000members in about 75 villages. A number of programmes linked to agriculture havebeen initiated. The establishment of a community grain-fund programme saw theregeneration of over 1,000 hectares of fallow land, and the start of a PublicDistribution System (PDS) that the women own and run. Collective farming wasinitiated for women with very small land-holdings. A community gene-fundprogramme established seed banks in over 30 villages, and revived over 60 cropvarieties that are now under cultivation. Some traditional foods, once almostforgotten, are again common in many households. At the seed bank there is noexchange of money; instead, the women return double the amount of seeds that theyhave taken from the bank. They are also establishing an alternate market that is undertheir control, where they can fix prices that are higher than in regular markets.Through all these activities, DDS has generated the equivalent of over a million newjobs over a decade, increased food availability by 100 to 200 kg per acre, andenhanced per acre earnings by an average factor of 12. Chemical inputs have beeneliminated and the use of biodiversity in the fields has increased. Several of the

28

women and men farmers were honoured for their outstanding work in conservingseeds and demonstrating sustainable productivity (S. Padmanabhan and A. Kothari,Kalpavriksh - Environmental Action Group, personal communication).

The M. S. Swaminathan Foundation in India has five major programme areas(PAs) that include the following relevant activities:PA 200: Biodiversity and BiotechnologyThe three principal goals are to:• Develop an implementation framework for achieving the triple aims of CBD,

namely, conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits• Save endangered habitats and species• Use genetic enhancement, bio-monitoring, and micro-propagation techniques for

promoting the cause of conservation and sustainable use

Good progress was made in achieving these goals. A large number of tribaland rural women and men were trained in the art and science of biodiversityconservation and in chronicling local biodiversity resources. Trained youth constitutea Community Agro-Biodiversity Conservation corps, who will be able to assist theirrespective communities in taking decisions on questions like "prior informed consent"and "access and benefit-sharing", after the national Biodiversity Act comes into force.

In the area of sustainable use, further progress was made to link conservationand commercialisation in a mutually supportive manner and to promote participatoryplant breeding. The work on the revitalisation of the in-situ on-farm conservationtraditions of tribal and rural families, and on sustainable and equitable use, receivedgenerous support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).This project is in progress in the States of Tamil Nadu (Kolli Hills), Kerala (Way-anad) and Orissa (Jeypore). A Voluntary Code of Conduct based on the principles ofCBD guides the work of all researchers working in this project.

The participatory plant breeding work initiated this year in collaboration withthe farming families of Kolli Hills, Wayanad and Jeypore has made a good beginning.The methodological underpinning of the project was discussed at a workshop jointlyorganised by MSSRF and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics (ICRISAT) at Hyderabad. An important component of this work relates to theimprovement of njavara, a rice strain widely used in Ayurvedic medicine in Kerala.

The community in-situ and ex-situ conservation activities were streamlinedthrough a linked network of in-situ Field Gene Banks (on-farm) and ex- situCryogenic Gene Bank. This represents the first scientifically structured CommunityGene Management System in India (the term "gene management" refers toconservation and sustainable and equitable use of genetic resources).

Several training programmes for rural youth were organised by the B. R.Barwale Chair in Biodiversity. Steps were also taken to assist local communities inthe preparation of People’s biodiversity registers. Pending the setting up of official-level Panchayat Biodiversity Councils, the formation of broad based village levelBiodiversity Management Committees including the Panchayat President, VillageOfficer and Local School Headmaster, is being promoted. This voluntary code ofconduct calls for adherence to the principle of prior informed consent.

29

In the field of molecular mapping and genetic enhancement, a binary vectorcarrying the BADH gene cloned from mangrove species was constructed. Methods ofintegrating the BADH gene, which confers tolerance to sea water salinity, into thetobacco genome were standardised. The work on biomonitoring of ecosystem healthusing Pseudomonas and lichen species made further progress. Micropropagationprotocols were standardised for 14 species (10 endangered and medicinal and 4mangrove species). These protocols have been made available to the Department ofBiotechnology for commercialisation.

PA 300: Ecotechnology and Sustainable AgricultureThe Ecotechnology programme aims to promote sustainable livelihoods in

rural areas by undertaking the technological and skill empowerment of the poor. Theseed village programme at Kannivadi led to the distribution of nearly a million rupeesas wages to women. The ornamental fish production and Low External InputSustainable Aquaculture (LEISA) programmes at Keelamanakudi and Chidambaramhelped to improve household income substantially. The work on creating markets fortraditional grains like Panicum, Paspalum and Setaria species made good progress.Wheat bread prepared with 10% flour of sadan samai (Panicum sumatrense) wassubstantially high in micronutrients like calcium, iron and vitamins. Negotiations arein progress for introducing a new brand of bread prepared with the flour of wheat andminor millets.

VI.8.2. Area-wide integration of crop and livestock production, VietnamPeriurban dairy centres pose the threat of a net accumulation of phosphorus

and potassium in urban drinking water and soil. A report by Bob Orskov ofAberdeen, Scotland, to a recent electronic conference on area-wide integration ofcrop and livestock production revealed a solution to this problem in Vietnam.Dairy units around Ho Chi Minh City sell manure to coffee farmers far from thecity. The cows are fed mainly on city by-products delivered from urban factories,including brewer’s waste grain, cassava waste, tofu waste, etc., in addition to somegreen feed and rice straw. The cows are therefore extracting nutrients from citywastes. Milk and other products are returned to the urban environment and themanure is again sent away to fertilise coffee and other crops, reducing the threat ofdegradation of urban water and soil quality.

VII. Results and lessons learned

Agrobiodiversity includes not only agricultural species, varieties, and their relatives,but all living elements within the agricultural landscape that provide support andservices to agriculture.

Services provided by wild biodiversity in agroecosystems, such as pollination, soilquality enhancement and reduced erosion, and pest amelioration, have not beensufficiently addressed in NBSAPs or agriculture sector reports.

Departments of agriculture must work together with NBSAP planners to maximiseagrobiodiversity conservation and sustainable productivity.

30

National agricultural plans must be revised with a grassroots – up approach. Input bysmall-scale farmers, women, and indigenous peoples must be incorporated intoagricultural plans and the NBSAP.

Indigenous cropping systems should be given incentives to flourish, and riskier, lessbiodiverse production systems like cash-cropping should be given reduced incentives.

Multiple cropping in space and/or time intensifies productivity and reduces risk ofpest and disease outbreaks compared with monocropping.

Open trade with foreign countries may result in hardship to small farmers.

Communities can work on their own if empowered to revive and conserve their ownindigenous crops and livestock.

Communities can work to improve market potentials by combining small farms intolarger co-operatives and fixing higher prices.

Strengthened individual land rights tend to lead to agricultural intensification and todeter deforestation and other habitat degradation.

On-farm training can result in increased capacity to use novel means to increaseproduction without risk to biodiversity, such as IPM.

Human population pressure is a major cause of biodiversity erosion in the region.Agricultural intensification can support some increase in demographic pressures.

VIII. Guidelines or policies that resulted from this experience

The Philippines Agriculture Sector Report (1995) recommends biodiversityconservation and sustainable use strategies that include the following:• In-situ conservation of traditional farming systems• In-situ conservation of wild relatives of domesticated species – this will require

the basic understanding of the needed interphase between varietal agrobiodiversityand ecosystem agrobiodiversity. The wild germplasm of use in agriculture andforestry should be maintained within its natural ecosystem.

• Promotion of equitable benefits from agrobiodiversity• Enhancement of agrobiodiversity value

Specifically for the livestock sector, the Report recommends the following strategies:• Information and education campaign among farmers• Setting up a buy-back/save-the-herd scheme• Establishment of a nation-wide livestock diversity conservation network• Inclusion of a livestock diversity conservation programme in the government’s

livestock development programme• Capacity building on relevant technologies for livestock biodiversity conservation• Inclusion in school curricula issues of domestic indigenous animal conservation in

addition to wildlife conservationDevelopment opportunities for forest biodiversity include:

31

• prospecting for economically important products• species domestication and breeding for productivity• biodiversity conservation and management by local/indigenous communities• ecotourism• biotechnology.

32

References

Cabrido, C.A., Jr. and W. E. Cabezon. 1995. Philippine biodiversity country study:biodiversity and land use. Final report for Protected Areas and WildlifeBureau, Department of Environment and Natural resources, Philippines.

Eveleens, K.G., R. Chisholm, E. van der Fliert, M. Kato, P.T. Nhat, and P. Schmidt.1996. Mid term review of Phase III Report. The FAO Intercountry Programmefor the Development and Application of Integrated Pest Control in Rice inSouth and Southeast Asia. FAO, Manila and Rome.

Government of India. 1990. Statistical Handbook. New Delhi.

Government of India. 1998. Outline for Biological Diversity Act. Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests, draft.

Government of India. 2000. The biological diversity bill. Bill No. 93 of 2000.

Hoyt, E. 1992. Conserving the wild relatives of crops. IBPGR, IUCN, and WWF.Second Edition.

Kanis

Kothari, A. 1999. Agro-biodiversity: The future of India's agriculture. In: Pillai,G.M. (ed.). Challenges of Agriculture in the 21st Century. MaharashtraCouncil of Agricultural Education and Research, Pune, India.

Lumb, L. 1988. ‘Crops of Truth’: conserving agricultural biodiversity in AndhraPradesh, India. Science from the Developing World. IDRC Reports.<http://www.idrc.ca/reports>

Madulid, D.A., R. Serrano, and W. S. Gruezo. 1995. Philippine biodiversity countrystudy: Sectoral report on forestry. Final report for UNEP-DENR, Quezon City,the Philippines.

Maikhuri, R.K., R.L. Semwal, K.S. Rao, S. Nautiyal, and K.G. Saxena. 1997. ErodingTraditional Crop Diversity Imperils the Sustainability of Agricultural Systemsin Central Himalaya. Current Science 73(9).

McNeely, J.A. 1999. Mobilizing broader support for Asia’s biodiversity: How civilsociety can contribute to protected area management. Asian DevelopmentBank, Manila.

McNeely, J.A. and S. Scherr. 2001. Strategies to enhance wild biodiversity inagricultural lands. A paper presented at the Workshop on AgriculturalBiodiversity, Nairobi, Kenya, 3 – 5 July.

Mercado, A., Jr., M. Stark, and D.P. Garrity. 1997. Enhancing sloping landmanagement technology adoption and dissemination. Paper presented at the

33

IBSRAM Sloping Land Management Workshop, Bogor, Indonesia, 15 - 21September.

Philippines. 1995a. Philippine sectoral report on agriculture and livestock to theCBD. Republic of the Philippines.

Philippines. 1995b. Philippine sectoral report on forestry to the CBD. Republic ofthe Philippines.

Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 1997. Philippinesbiodiversity: an assessment and action plan. Bookmark, Inc., Makati City,Republic of the Philippines.

Philippines. 1998. The first Philippine national report to the Convention onBiological Diversity. Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources. Republic of the Philippines.

Poffenberger, M. and B. McGean (eds.). 1996. Village voices, forest choices: jointforest management in India. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

Pretty, J. and R. Hine. 2000. Feeding the world with sustainable agriculture; asummary of new evidence. Final report of SAFE Project, University of Essex.

Tachibana, T., T. Nguyen, and K. Otsuka. 2001. Agricultural intensification versusextensification: a case study of deforestation in the northern-hill region ofVietnam. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41(1): 44-69.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).http://sanrem16.sanrem.uga. edu/ electronic conference.

Vietnam. 1998. Report of the Vietnamese Delegation at the Fourth Conference ofthe Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity (COP 4). May 2-15,1998. Bratislava, Slovakia.

Tables

Table 1. Problems, threats, and issues in forest- and agro-ecosystems (excerptedfrom Philippines Biodiversity: an Assessment and Action Plan, 1997)

Major Concerns Forest Ecosystems AgroecosystemsA. Problems and threats1. Habitat destruction Forest fires

LoggingConversion ConversionNatural calamities Natural calamitiesPests and diseases

2. Overexploitation Commercial timber and non-timber speciesIncreased demand due topopulation growth

Increased demand due topopulation growth

Open access Open access3. Biological pollution (specieslevel)

Introduction of alien species Inappropriate breeding

4. Chemical pollution Chemical defoliants Inappropriate farming systems5. Weak institutional and legalcapacities

Inappropriate policies Inappropriate policies

Lack of technical expertiseShortage of fundsWeak IEC

B. Issues1. Biotechnology Developments of undesirable

mutantsDevelopments of undesirablemutants

Genetic erosion Genetic erosionBiological warfare Biological warfarePest resistance and introgression Pest resistance and introgression

2. Ecotourism Ecological stress --Cultural stressCommercialisation

3. Domestication Genetic erosion Genetic erosion4. Bioprospecting Species extinction Species extinction

IPR IPRGenetic erosion Genetic erosionOverexploitation

C. Gaps1. Knowledge Baseline Baseline2. Management* Various aspects Various aspects3. Policy** Various aspects Biotechnology

Biosafety Biosafety

*Management: means of intervention such as conservation of biodiversity or bioresources.**Policy: definite course of action adopted and pursued by government such as biodiversityconservation and bioresource utilisation.

35

Table 2: Matrix showing the primary problems, threats, issues, and gaps addressed bythe programs and projects of the Philippines Biodiversity Assessment and ActionPlan (PBAAP) for the forest and agriculture ecosystems (excerpted from the PBAAP1997, TABLE 97)(legend follows).

Programs, projects, activities Problems addressed Gaps AddressedForestecosystem

Agro-ecosystem

Forestecosystem

Agro-ecosystem

Strategy I Expanding and improvingknowledge on the characteristics,uses and values of biologicaldiversity

I.A Biodiversity inventory programmeProject I.A.1 Plant resource inventory HD BP HD BP GK GKProject I.A. 2 Animal resource inventory HD BP HD BP GK GKProject I.A. 4 Microbial resource inventory HD BP CP HD BP CP GK GKProject I.A.5 Carrying capacity assessment of

critical forest habitats andecosystem

HD OE GK

Project I.A.8 Carrying capacity of majorcritical watersheds in the country

HD OE HD OE GK GK

Project I.A.10 Interhabitat connectivity studies HD OE CP HD OE CP GK GKProject I.A.11 Ecological and population studies

of forest speciesHD OE BP GK

I.B Ecosystem mapping and data validationprogrammeProject I.B.1 Identification and mapping of

biodiversity-rich areas notcovered by NIPAS or declaredprotected areas

HD HD GK GM GK GM

Project I.B.2 Detailed mapping of biodiversity-rich areas and proposedinfrastructure development

HD HD GK GM GK GM

Project I.B.4 Foundation GIS of biodiversity-rich areas using updated data

HD HD GK GM GK GM

I.C Socio-economic studies programmeProject I.C.1 Indigenous knowledge systems

and practices on biodiversityconservation and sustainabledevelopment

OE WILC OE WILC GK GMGP

GK GM GP

Project I.C.2 Valuation and accounting ofdirect and indirect goods andservices from biodiversity andbioresources

HD OEWILC

HD OEWILC

GK GMGP

GK GM GP

Programs, projects, activities Problems addressed Gaps AddressedForestecosystem

Agro-ecosystem

Forestecosystem

Agro-ecosystem

Project I.C.4 Integrate a biodiversitycomponent to the population-development-environmentframework of the Philippinepopulation managementprogramme

OE WILC OE WILC GK GMGP

GK GM GP

Project I.C.5 Development andinstitutionalisation of anecologically-oriented anddisaggregated population data

OE WILC OE WILC GK GMGP

GK GM GP

36

Programs, projects, activities Problems addressed Gaps AddressedForestecosystem

Agro-ecosystem

Forestecosystem

Agro-ecosystem

baseStrategy II. Enhancing and integrating

existing and planned biodiversityconservation efforts withemphasis on in-situ activities

II. A In-situ conservation programmeProject II.A.1 Rehabilitation of damaged critical

habitats and ecosystemsHD OE BP HD OE GM GM

Project II.A.3 Conservation of mother trees forseed and sapling production

HD OE BP

Project II.A.4 Establishment of in-situconservation centres of wildrelatives

HD OE BP GM

Project II.A.5 Establishment of on-farmagrobiodiversity conservationcentres

HD OE GM

Project II.A.6 Piloting of landscape-lifescapeapproach to watershed andbiodiversity conservation andmanagement

HD OE BPCP WILC

HD OE BPCP WILC

GM GM

Project II.A.7 Development and piloting ofmanagement and utilisationsystems for old growth andsecondary tropical forests.

HD OE BPCP WILC

GM

Project II.A.8 National ecotourism developmentplan

HD OE GM

Project II.A.9 Ecotourism as a tool for forestbiodiversity conservation andmanagement

HD OE BPCP

GM

II.B Ex-situ conservation programmeProject II.B.1 Recovery and reintroduction of

rare and endangered speciesHD OE BP HD OE BP GM GM

Project II.B.2 Establishment of botanic gardens HD OE BP HD OE BP GM GMProject II.B.3 Establishment of wildlife rescue

and refuge centresHD OE GM

Project II.B.4 Establishment of gene banks HD OE BP HD OE BP GM GMStrategy III Formulating an integrated policy

and legislative framework for theconservation, sustainable use andequitable sharing of benefits ofbiological diversity

Project III.1 Codification of laws related tobiodiversity

WILC WILC GP GP

Project III.2 Development of a realistic systemof economic instruments such as:access fees, incentives andpenalties for the utilisation ofbiological resources andbiodiversity

HD OE BPCP WILC

HD OE BPCP WILC

GM GP GM GP

Project III.3 Identification, delineation, andmanagement of ancestral domain

HD OE BPCP WILC

HD OE BPCP WILC

GK GMGP

GK GM GP

Activity III.1 Policy advocacy HD OE BPCP WILC

HD OE BPCP WILC

GM GP GM GP

Activity III.2 Formulation of guidelines on landuse planning and biodiversityconservation and integrationthereof in the plans of concernedagencies

HD OE BPCP WILC

HD OE BPCP WILC

GM GM

Strategy IV Strengthening capacities forintegrating and institutionalising

37

Programs, projects, activities Problems addressed Gaps AddressedForestecosystem

Agro-ecosystem

Forestecosystem

Agro-ecosystem

biodiversity conservation andmanagement

IV.A Institutional capacity programmeProjectIV.A.1

Creation of a Philippinebiodiversity centre

WILC WILC GM GM

ProjectIV.A.2

Establishment of an inter-agencyadvocacy group on population-biodiversity-environment

WILC WILC GM GM

ProjectIV.A.3

Enhance the population-biodiversity-environmentspecification of theenvironmental impact assessmentinstrument

HD OE BPCP WILC

HD OE BPCP WILC

GM GP GM GP

ActivityIV.A.2

Expansion of the membership ofthe sub-committee onbiodiversity of the PhilippineCouncil for SustainableDevelopment

WILC WILC GM GP GM GP

Programs, projects, activities Problems addressed Gaps AddressedForestecosystem

Agro-ecosystem

Forestecosystem

Agro-ecosystem

IV.B Human resources developmentProjectIV.B.1

Development of capacity onbiodiversity planning: I. Privatesector stakeholders

WILC WILC GM GM

ProjectIV.B.2

Development of capacity onbiodiversity planning: II.Government decision makers

WILC WILC GM GM

ProjectIV.B.3

Formation of a curriculumdrafting committee

WILC WILC GK GM GK GM

Strategy V Mobilising an integratedinformation, education, and (IEC)system for biodiversityconservation

V.A. Biodiversity conservation awareness andinformation programme for local communitiesProject V.A.1 Popularisation of educational

materials on biodiversityconservation ethics and strategies

WILC WILC GM GM

Project V.A.2 Support for the integrated IECsystem implementation forbiodiversity conservation

WILC WILC GM GM

Project V.A.3 Community organising andbiodiversity conservation trainingfor local stakeholders

WILC WILC GM GM

V.B. Community-based biodiversityconservation education and research programmeProject V.B.1 Technical competency training on

biodiversity research andmanagement information system

WILC OE WILC OE GM GM

Project V.B.2 Establishment of a pilot villagebiodiversity research andmanagement information system

WILC WILC GM GM

Project V.B.3 Community-based developmentand management for biodiversity

WILC WILC GM GM

38

Programs, projects, activities Problems addressed Gaps AddressedForestecosystem

Agro-ecosystem

Forestecosystem

Agro-ecosystem

education for local communitiesV.C. Value-added products and alternativesustainable livelihood development forbioresources-dependent communitiesProject V.C.1 Local capability building for

development and management oflivelihood enterprises

OE OE GM GM

Strategy VI Advocating stronger internationalcooperation on biodiversitymanagement

Project VI.1 Establishment of the ASEANRegional Centre for BiodiversityConservation

WILC WILC GM GM

Legend: Problems addressed: Gaps addressed:HD - Habitat destruction GK – Gaps in knowledgeOE – Overexploitation GM – Gaps in management

BP – Biological pollution GP – Gaps in policyCP - Chemical pollutionWILC – Weak institutional and legal capacities

Annexes

Annex 1. The Proposed India Biological Diversity Act, 1998: ImportantProvisions with Relevance to Agrobiodiversity (Source: Kothari 1999?)

39

The Government of India, in a follow-up action to the international Convention onBiological Diversity, has drafted a Biological Diversity Act. Set to go to Parliament byearly 1999, the proposed Act aims to conserve biodiversity, achieve sustainable use ofbiological resources, and ensure equitable sharing of the benefits arising from suchuses. Amongst its important provisions, with relevance to agro-biodiversity, are thefollowing. It:

1. prohibits transfer of Indian genetic material outside the country, without specificapproval of the Indian Government through a due process;

2. stipulates that anyone wanting to take a patent or other intellectual property right(IPR) over such material, or over related knowledge, will have to seek permissionin advance;

3. provides for the levying of appropriate fees and royalties on such transfers andIPRs;

4. regulates access to such material by Indian national also, to ensure that there issome control over over-exploitation (e.g. of medicinal plants), and that there issome sharing of benefits to all concerned parties; however, it provides somerelaxation in the case of research;

5. provides for measures to conserve and sustainably use biological resources,including habitat and species protection, conservation in gene banks,environmental impact assessments of all projects which could harm biodiversity,and so on;

6. empowers local communities to have a say in the use of resources and knowledgewithin their jurisdiction, and to enter into negotiations with parties who want touse these resources and knowledge;

7. provides for the development of an appropriate legislation or administrative steps,including registration, to protect indigenous and community knowledge;

8. empowers governments to declare Biodiversity Heritage Sites, as areas for specialmeasures for conservation and sustainable use of biological resources, as alsonotify threatened species to control their collection and use;

9. stipulates that risks associated with biotechnology (including the use ofgenetically modified organisms), will be regulated or controlled throughappropriate means;

10. provides for the designation of repositories of biological resources, at national andother levels.

The BDA envisages the creation of Funds at local, state, and national levels, whichwill be used to support conservation and benefit-sharing activities. These funds willbe generated from fees, royalties, donations, etc. The BDA proposes to set up bodiesat the national, state, and local levels, to carry out the above functions. Whether thisAct will indeed help to protect agrobiodiversity and farmer community rights, onlytime will tell.